Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
From: Igor (jjweatherby_at_houston.rr.com)
Date: 12/30/04
- Next message: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Previous message: Igor: "Re: increasing return to scale and perfect competition"
- In reply to: imouttahere_at_mac.com: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Next in thread: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:38:45 GMT
imouttahere@mac.com wrote:
> Igor wrote:
>
>>imouttahere@mac.com wrote:
> I'm no analyst and all the research I can do is the publically
> available web, but just as McDonald's is a really a real estate
> investment company in disguise, I suspect Chevron, being in the state
> since time immemorial, is even more so, but extending the 'land' part
> of its speculation into all of the state's remaining natural resources
> that it claims.
>
> Chevron gets hit with a high income tax rate and paid $5B in income tax
> for FY03 but it has $44B of unamortized fixed assets on its books. Lord
> knows what the actual market value of all its properties are.
>
What you are missing here is Chevron and McDonalds already pay a boat
load of land taxes that are not Georgian. For instance, Chevron has a
big plant just outside of houston. That plant funds most of an entire
school district just from the non-Georgian land tax in place. Currently
SLGs tax improved and unimproved values. To convert this to a tax that
George argued for the improved portion would NOT be taxed. If it were a
true sweeping change and not an addition in taxes companies would
support it. The tax would raise returns on their investments.
>
>>SLGs tax your capital improvements as
>>well as the value of the unimproved land. Some companies like Exxon
>>would probably end up paying less.
>
>
> Not if the capital development has been tax-abated or has obtained
> special offsets like public infrastructure investments.
>
It does not happen that way often. These are recent and the abatements
last for only a while. The abatement is not really an abatement they
have to put some much into public fundings like construction for
schools. It is still a tax but it is just not called one.
>
>>I think the real problem is the locked in system of labor taxes. I do
>
>
>>not think Americans would see this as fair even if it was. Opponents
>>would harp on how it would raise "rent", as in rent paid for housing,
>
>
>>and taxes for the common people.
>
>
> Yeah, opponents have been harping on the effects moving toward a
> single-tax for more than a century now. Is there anywhere in the world
> where it was implemented and made things worse?
>
I did not say it would. I am speaking of political reality not economic
theory. Trust as an economist I know there are a lot of things that
could be improved but the politicians can not sell them or it hurts
their special interest.
>>There is no big conspiracy.
>
>
> That's what all big conspiracies say :)
>
Oh the old conspiracy theorist arguement. We can not find any proof so
that is proof that the government is hiding something. When people like
Bob Lazar can not even verify a degree or a high school diploma to a
conspiracy theorist it is proof that the government wiped all traces of
him from the records. When he produces a tax statement with an agency
that does not exist conspiracy theorist think this is proof the agency
is covered up. Those more skeptical realize the reason you can not find
the proof just might be because it does not exist and never existed.
>
>>We do not have the European landed aristrocacy here in the US.
>
>
> We have wealth concentration that is breathtaking, and increasing.
>
> http://www.schalkenbach.org/library/GaffneyWhoOwnsCalifornia.htm
>
Wealth "concentration" is not a landed aristrocracy. This does not come
from the Norman ideals of inherietence. It comes from above average
people taking risk and/or becoming educated. A landed aristrocy
precludes people from getting wealthier. The only preclusion to enormous
wealth in the US is your own lack of abilities and/or your own desire to
take risk and do what it takes to get that wealth.
>
>>Things have changed quite a bit since George.
>
>
> yeah, they've gotten a helluva lot worse for the average guy in the
> state.
>
Yeah sure it is. How many sharecroppers are there today? How many
slaves? If things are so much worse than how does the poorest person in
American obtain goods and services even Thomas Jefferson could not have
obtained in revolutionary times. If anything labor has improved greatly.
The Marxist notion that the rich get richer at the expense of the poor
is false. This notion of an increasing inequality gap means people are
poorer is not true. All people are getting richer. Even the poor today
are richer than the poor yesterday. The man hours of labor needed to buy
simple household appliances like refigerators have decreased rapidly. In
the 1950's being poor meant sometimes you may not have food on the
table. In 2004 being poor means you do not have cable TV.
>
>>A corporation seeing other taxes drop, such as the portion of
>>social security, they pay as land taxes rose would see the benefits.
>
>
> I don't understand that statement...
>
Employeers have to match what employees pay for SS. So if income taxes
were eliminated, as George proposed, and shifted to land taxes, business
would see land tax rise but the taxes paid for things like SS drop. It
is not clear if this means a wash, more taxes, or less taxes.
- Next message: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Previous message: Igor: "Re: increasing return to scale and perfect competition"
- In reply to: imouttahere_at_mac.com: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Next in thread: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
